Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

There are 20 comments on the Aug 4, 2010, www.cnn.com story titled Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage. In it, www.cnn.com reports that:

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.cnn.com.

Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182127 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Come on Frank, having children is not a requirement in marriage. Why are you grasping at straws??
You really ARE a pedophile, aren't you ?
PetRocks

Covina, CA

#182128 Mar 1, 2013
Who said poster-D was stupid as a rock?

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#182129 Mar 1, 2013
Randy -Rock- Hudson wrote:
<quoted text>
We have laws against that, but you knew that. This would make you a pedophile. Are you a pedophile ? Or are you simply trying to apply a laughably silly analogy ?
Like the laws on Polygamy?? OH my snap
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182130 Mar 1, 2013
To use criminals in a vain attempt to draw parallels to polygamous marriages, while frail in and of itself, is nothing short of the EXACT same demonizing tactics that have been declared unfair by the gays, when they had to defend against the EXACT same charges. Witness the duality of this philosophy. It was patently wrong when the gays had to hear this, but now this ass-puppet makes the EXACT same claims against the polygamous side, and not 1 of the gays has the stones to tell him that this was wrong then, and it is wrong now. How telling of all of you gays to fall silent while this occurs. Have none of you got 1 ounce of moral rightness ? Stand and watch while others use this same argument ? How foul of all of you.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182131 Mar 1, 2013
Edgar wrote:
<quoted text>
(Also, the fact that you focus so much on aspects of gay sex really makes me wonder...)
Really? You are trying to shame me with that insinuation???

Too late, note my name. I'm a hermaphrodite and a genetic chimera. Look it up.

As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons;

One, intercourse is at the heart to union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design.

And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect. While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.

Smile.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#182132 Mar 1, 2013
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
My communication skills aren't the problem, you comprehension skills are.
<quoted text>
LOL. Dummy, everyone is treated equally- no one is allowed to marry a person of the same sex and everyone is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.
That's like saying everyone was treated equally under Jim Crow because everybody could sit in the section assigned to their race.

Sorry, LOLSER, the "opposite sex" is not the same for men and women, so men and women are not being treated equally.
akaidiot wrote:
We have been through this before Rose, even the court told you that you are an idiot:
"Plaintiffs' reliance on Loving v Virginia (388 US 1 [1967]) for the proposition that the US Supreme Court has established a fundamental "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" outside the male/female construct is misplaced.[...]
They are wrong. And I've shown that.
akaidiot wrote:
The Supreme Court struck the statute on both equal protection and due process grounds, but the focus of the analysis was on the Equal Protection Clause. Noting that "[t]he clear and central purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to eliminate all official state sources of invidious racial discrimination in the States," the Court applied strict scrutiny review to the racial classification, finding "no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification" (id. at 10, 11). It made clear "that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the [*12]Equal Protection Clause" (id. at 12). There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination.
In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation. It reasoned: "To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes ... is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law" (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations" (id.[emphasis added])...Plaintiffs cite Loving for the proposition that a statute can discriminate even if it treats both classes identically. This misconstrues the Loving analysis because the antimiscegenation statute did not treat blacks and whites identically—it restricted who whites could marry (but did not restrict intermarriage between non-whites)
And by restricting who whites could marry, it restricted who non whites could marry, because some non whites couldn't marry whites.
akaidiot wrote:
for the purpose of promoting white supremacy. Virginia's antimiscegenation statute was the quintessential example of invidious racial discrimination as it was intended to advantage one race and disadvantage all others, which is why the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny and struck it down as violating the core interest of the Equal Protection Clause.
In contrast, neither men nor women are disproportionately disadvantaged or burdened by the fact that New York's Domestic Relations Law allows only opposite-sex couples to marry—both genders are treated precisely the same way." Hernandez v Robles

Men are allowed to marry women, but women aren't.
Women are allowed to marry men, but men aren't.
Men tend to make more money, so men are disadvantaged when it comes to choosing who to marry.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#182133 Mar 1, 2013
akaidiot wrote:
<quoted text>
It sure does, but unlike you when it does so it cites the original source- Skinner v Oklahoma. Something that you like to ignore as it ties marriage and procreation as rights into a nice little bundle.
Stupid, Skinner v OK was not a case about marriage, but about using forced sterilization as punishment for crime. Marriage and procreation were legally tied together back then, as it was against the law to have sex if you weren't married.
But you don't have to be able to procreate in order to marry, you don't now, and you didn't then.
Loving v VA was a case about marriage.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182134 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it "gay sex" if lots of straight people do it, and most gay people don't? I believe it's called anal sex.
If you want the government to directly intervene and prevent all anal sex, then wouldn't that apply to straight folks as well? What kind of testing and regulation would you require the government to engage in to deny marriage license to any anal sex practitioners? Who would run it?
Who would pay for it?
And most importantly, who else but you would support it?
Here is the standard statement I make;

"Anal sex is inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning."

-Please, where have I limited the issue to one orientation?

-Where have I stated any position on a legal response?

I simply make a scientifically factual statement. You make a slimy, deceitful gay twirl slither because you have no logical defense of the truth I stated.

A legitimate cause does not need those tactics, does it?

Smile.

“Vita e' Bella.”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#182135 Mar 1, 2013
sanford wrote:
D stands for DUMMY
Sanford as in Fred G.?
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182136 Mar 1, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, you left out the first logical step.
In reality, it's the current ability of heterosexuals to marry that is the leading cause for other groups to demand the right to legally marry. Same sex couples are only asking for the SAME right to marry just one person.
However, same sex couples wanting the SAME right to marry one that already exists for ever heterosexual in the country is not similar to straight people demanding the right to marry, not only ONE, but many at one time.
Separate issues. Separate effects on society.
Actually, when you consider the "government must stay out of our bedrooms" argument that the gays have poutingly used, your assertion falls into shadow...

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182137 Mar 1, 2013
sheesh void of hate wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you focus on this one aspect of human sexuality because you're a hopeless dullard. There is so much more to homosexuality and heterosexuality than the location of one's junk. Try growing up for a day or two.
Of course there is more than just the inherent harm, unhealthiness and degradation of anal sex. I summarize much of that diverse distinction in this;

If you
believe denying marriage to a relationship
will prevent love

If you
demand any committed relationship
has to be called marriage

If you
claim rights and benefits can only be acquired
by an imposition on marriage

If you
equate the diversity of two genders
with the redundancy of same genders

If you
desecrate the sacred tradition of all major religions
and violate the historic practice of every single culture in history

If you
believe a fundamental change to the building block of society
will have absolutely no affect

If you
think a law can change
the reality of crucial distinctions in relationships

If you
pretend duplicating sexuality
is the same as blending masculinity and femininity

If you
condemn some children to parents of only one gender
and deliberately deny some children one natural parent

If you
ignore the design of sexual union
to manipulate a harmful act

If you
violate evolution's law of reproduction
to equate a genetic dead end

If you
risk the healthiest human relationship
to include one of the unhealthiest

If you
parallel the sole birthplace of every other relationship
with one that can reproduce none

If you
dilute all these things
down to just 'a committed relationship of two people'

Then, and only then, can you equate same-sex unions with marriage.

Smile.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182138 Mar 1, 2013
Big D wrote:
<quoted text>
But why do something that complex when few are even calling for it?
There aren’t people out there getting signatures for propositions, except perhaps in your great state of marriage equality, Utah ( that is so funny, best laugh I have had on these forums yet, thanks )
Until there is actually a call for it, by people that are actually interested in investing their lives and donate for the cause as has happened with other such social change, nothing is going to happen.
so far all we have are fairly reclusive groups that don’t even want government recognition, and a lunatic on an internet forum that has already admitted he is not personally interested in poly marriage at all.
Why would we change a plethora of civil laws, when no constituency is calling for it.
Oh, but there will be. You see, up until now, we all accepted sanity as our ruling philosophy. But now, in the "Times of Madness" in which we have found ourselves, we are redefining what "marriage" means. And there will be plenty enough to institute a change. Give it time.
Too complex ? When does complexity overrule doing the right thing ?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182139 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
As you have noted many times before is that you're a crazy as batshit idiot claiming to be a hermaphrodite who opposes gay marriage for what can only be seen as foggy and often elusive reasoning.
Next.
Really. You seem to be foggy and elusive in responding to the reasoning above...

Snicker.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182140 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Please indicate how property disbursement will be allocated in a poly marriage where a man has say 4 wives.
wife # 1 , married 15 years, 5 children
wife #2, married 10 years, 4 children
wife #3 Married, 5 years,3 children
wife # 4 married 1 year, 1 child
The husband wishes to divorce wife #1. Will she get the house, and a bulk of his assets? How will that be fair to the 3 remaining wives.
He wants to divorce all 4, how will the property be split, will it be based on duration of each marriage.
The husband dies, at that point all 4 are widows, tell me Frank who will receive his social security, for the children, will each of them receive the same?
As you can see same sex marriages will not affect any standing laws.
Can you give us the link to the law book that governs this arena ? Then we can defer to the law for an answer. Of course you can't, because it has not been enacted yet. We'll get back to you, why not go back to holding your breath until we do ?

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#182141 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>
Heterosexual men and women enjoy anal sex.
Lesbian sex is unhealthy? Heterosexual men and women enjoy oral sex.
Dude, for Pete's sake turn the lights on and remove all your clothes. There is OH so much more than the Missionary position .
Unbelievably idiotic.

So according to your reasoning, if heterosexuals do stupid things, that makes it okay for homosexuals too?

How old are you?

Smirk.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182142 Mar 1, 2013
Jazybird58 wrote:
Frankie Rizzo
Union City, CA
Reply »
|Report Abuse |Judge it!|#181334 55 min ago
Judged:
4
4
4
Why can't I marry my sister? After all, marriage has nothing to do with procreation, right? And modern science has debunked the old wives tales about how close relatives procreating causes medical problems.
Before you get stupid and even angrier, I don't want to marry more than one woman and I don't want to marry my sister, I just want to discuss all aspects of marriage equality. Why does that anger you so?
Here ya go Frankie
Please indicate how property disbursement will be allocated in a poly marriage where a man has say 4 wives.
wife # 1 , married 15 years, 5 children
wife #2, married 10 years, 4 children
wife #3 Married, 5 years,3 children
wife # 4 married 1 year, 1 child
The husband wishes to divorce wife #1. Will she get the house, and a bulk of his assets? How will that be fair to the 3 remaining wives.
He wants to divorce all 4, how will the property be split, will it be based on duration of each marriage.
The husband dies, at that point all 4 are widows, tell me Frank who will receive his social security, for the children, will each of them receive the same?
As you can see same sex marriages will not affect any standing laws
Yes, please provide us with the link to the legal library that contains the laws and regulations on this matter, that we can refer to the articles that cover it...
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182143 Mar 1, 2013
Frankie Rizzo wrote:
<quoted text>
That's the same dumb putdown and argument bigots use against same sex marriage. It's really dumb.
Why are you a dumb angry bigot?
It's because the gays, and their supporters, wish to engage in reverse-discrimination, to see it how it felt to be the superior ones. Not about equality, at all.

Since: Apr 11

Santa Monica, CA

#182144 Mar 1, 2013
KiMare wrote:
As I have noted many times before, I focus on one single aspect of gay sex for two reasons; One, intercourse is at the heart of a union between a couple. Anal sex is an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. And two, anal sex is an inherently harmful, unhealthy and demeaning, clearly indicating a genetic defect.
You are a genetic defect. You call yourself a "monster mutation". You are an an extremely poor counterfeit of nature's design. Should you be allowed to marry?

And most people who have anal sex are straight. Should straight couples who have anal sex be allowed to marry?

Lesbians can't have it. Should female couples be allowed to marry?
KiMare wrote:
While lesbian sex is simply unhealthy and demeaning, it still is a silly attempt by duplicate genders trying to imitate the design of evolution, the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form.
How is lesbian sex unhealthy? Don't they have the lowest STD rates? No unplanned pregnancies.

Aren't you the 'reunion' of diverse genders to one life form? LOL!
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182145 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Polygamy was illegal BEFORE Prop 8. I'm very glad that exposes your stupidity.
So was sodomy illegal before it was decriminalized. Then it wasn't illegal anymore. Hope that helped to remove some of your vast stupidity, Man-breath. Thanks for the donation of your brain, to use in my "Stupid Robot" project, it is making for a startlingly stupid robot.
Randy -Rock- Hudson

Wooster, OH

#182146 Mar 1, 2013
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said heterosexuality is no longer relevant? Who says if one parameter is subject to change, all parameters become subject to change? Where do you get these stupid ideas?
Well, for one, Chongo did, when he/she/it tried to use Loving V Virginia to validate SSM, Loving V Virginia being about racial equality, not SSM.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Hemet Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Hemet eye care center on Morton place FRAUD (Mar '11) 23 hr miss debbie12 47
Albertsons in Hemet (Sep '07) Sat amanda castro 18
News HEMET: Information, not cash, for panhandlers (Feb '12) Apr 24 Chris 18
Abandoned Insane Asylum In Hemet.... (Jun '09) Apr 23 Flora 69
Lou Pittam's Store (Apr '10) Apr 21 Iremember 6
HemetHEMET: Water future murky Apr 21 Badskpr 1
Netflix Apr 20 Cassierae 1
More from around the web

Hemet People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]